If you have been even halfway plugged to the health care debate this week, chances are you have caught wind that many women and their allies are not happy about the recent bill. H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act, passed with a vote of 220-215 this past Saturday night. It is an achievement insofar as policymaking occurs at the speed of molasses and we finally have a health reform bill — that includes a public option, ends pre-existing condition discrimination and extends healthcare to 36 million Americans — that has been punted to the Senate. But one small step for healthcare reform has meant one giant leap back for womankind.

The current plan prevents millions of women from buying insurance plans that cover abortions, which impacts particular women who would seek to purchase a plan in the insurance exchange or through the public option. At issue is the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, a last-minute write-in that bans federal monies from being spent on health plans that cover abortions except in the instance of rape, incest and life endangerment of the mother.

For those who are getting déjà-vu, read the fine print. The infamous Hyde Amendment enacted in 1976 prevents federal monies from being spent on abortion — not insurance plans that cover them. The Stupak Amendment ups the ante and deals a blow to insurance plans. As the name of the bill implies, bringing down the cost of insurance plans was one of the main objectives of reform. But this amendment creates an environment where women must choose between a more affordable plan and a private insurance plan that will likely be less affordable but more comprehensive in its reproductive health offerings.

Some of us work-world bound women may feel spared from all this drama because we assume that the professions we are headed for will provide comprehensive coverage. Not so fast, missy. The House bill’s health care proposal imposes taxes on employers that provide coverage for their employees that could be up to eight percent of their payroll. While there is no way to know for sure, employer-sponsored coverage isn’t necessarily guaranteed in your salaried profession. After this is over, women in large numbers may need to rely on public plans. Why should these plans not give them comprehensive reproductive health care options?

I wouldn’t be so miffed about this doggone Stupak Amendment if its institution hadn’t ousted a perfectly sound compromise on abortion. Under the previous compromise, formerly known as the Capps Amendment, the insurance exchange would provide one insurance plan in every area of the country that covered abortions and one that didn’t cover abortions. In keeping with the Hyde Amendment, it would have subsidized abortions through co-payments and insurance premiums in the event that a woman needed this medical procedure. At the behest of the almighty Catholic lobby, and pusillanimous Democrats who keep late hours in terror of 2010’s election cycle, this compromise was gutted.

This past Monday, President Obama expressed to ABC News his dissatisfaction with the Stupak Amendment. “There needs to be some more work before we get to the point where we’re not changing the status quo,” he said. To do this, the Senate must reinstate the previous compromise.

As a sexual health advocate, it’s not lost on me that many abortions represent the possible transmission of an otherwise preventable STI or unplanned pregnancy. The truth is, underneath this long-held stalemate what we all truly want are positive sexual health outcomes and children that are planned and prepared for. While abortion is often a point of virulent disagreement, there are certainly ways to promote informed consent to sex that meet the objectives of anti-abortion and abortion-rights folks. These policies have the benefit of being outside of pressing health care reform and allow us to work together to promote strong families and efficient government spending.

One current plan of this sort is H.R. 3312, the Preventing Unintended Pregnancies, Reducing the Need for Abortion, and Supporting Parents Act. This act prioritizes low-income pregnant women and girls and calls for an increase in access to health care, contraception and sex education. Abortion-rights opponents should know that restricting a woman’s ability to use her own money to make decisions that she and her doctor see fit for her body, her family and her faith are not the way to reduce the number of abortions in America. Policies where coalitions are possible will lead to meaningful progress in American politics.

Rose Afriyie can be reached at sariyie@umich.edu.